• Marco Maestri, Francesco Castagnini, Federico Giardina, Giuseppe Tella, Enrico Tassinari, and Francesco Traina.
• Med Princ Pract. 2023 Sep 20; 32 (4-5): 225231225-31.

ObjectiveThe purpose of this systematic review is to assess clinical and radiographic outcomes, complications rates, rates and reasons of re-revision of isolated femoral or tibial component revisions, comparing them with total knee revisions.MethodsA review of the published literature was performed using Medline, Embase and Cochrane libraries. The terms "isolate" and "revision" and "knee arthroplasty" or "knee replacement" were together used as MESH terms. Partial knee replacement, non-English literature, case reports and papers published before 2000 were excluded.ResultsOut of 911 papers, six papers met the inclusion criteria. Mean MINORS scores achieved quite low values (13.33 and 13.67). No study encompassed revisions for septic loosening or infection. Total revisions performed for instability and wear achieved better clinical outcomes: in the other cases, partial and total revisions showed no differences in clinical outcomes. Both the cohorts showed similar radiographic features. Lesser bleeding and shorter operative times were observed in partial revisions compared to total revisions. The re-revision rates were similar in most of comparative studies: only one study noticed a significant difference in the failure rate between partial (25% at 3 years) and full (7% at 3.5 years) revisions.ConclusionsThe poor quality of the studies precluded sound conclusions. Isolated tibial or femoral component revision is an option when the other component is well-fixed and positioned and in absence of chronic periprosthetic infection; nevertheless, it should be carefully evaluated when the reasons for revision are wear or instability.The Author(s). Published by S. Karger AG, Basel.

7 keywords...

hide…